Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOCC Staff Report 04.26.2007Exhibits for Public Hearing held on April 26, 2007 Exhibit Letter (A to Z) Exhibit A Mail Receipts B Proof of Publication C Garfield County Zoning Regulations of 1978, as amended D Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended E Application materials F Staff Memorandum G Staff Presentation H Memo from Brit McLin of the Burning Mountain Fire Protection District dated 7- 19-2006 I Memo from John Taufer of John Taufer & Associates dated 2-14-2007 J Memo from Samual Phelps of SurvCo, Inc. dated 3-6-2007 K Memo from Jake Mall of the Garfield County Road and Bride Department dated 3-26-2007 L E -Mail from Cynthia Love of the Colorado Division of Water Resources received 4-3-2007 REQUEST OWNERS LOCATION S1'1E, DATA BOCC 4/16/2007 DP PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS Exemption from the Definition of Subdivision Lacy Orr and Gil Smith PROPOSED CONFIGURATION WATER SEWER ACCESS EXISTING ZONING ADJACENT ZONING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Approximately 9 miles south of the Town of New Castle at 6640 County Road 312 in the S '/s of the SE '/a of Section 30, Township 6 South, Range 90 West of the 6th PM, Garfield County. 78.4 acre parcel 5 Lots ranging in size from 10.996 acres to 20.192 acres Individual and Shared Wells Individual Sewage Disposal System (ISDS) County Road 312 ARRD ARRD Study Area 2 (Outlying Residential) -1- Legend HFgWfan.SIIMUe4 SIM TYPE Orr/Smith Exemption 0 1,300 2.600 520€1 Feet ill t i I -2- I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The owners of the subject 78.4 -acre property request approval from the Board of County Commissioners to split the tract into 5 tracts by way of the County's Subdivision Exemption process. The proposed lots are contemplated as the following sizes: Lot 1 14.373 Acres Lot 2 10.996 Acres Lot 3 14.001 Acres Lot 4 15.991 Acres Lot 5 20.192 Acres Each new tract will have direct public access from County Road 312. Water to each lot will be provided by individual wells and wastewater is to be handled by Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS). er 5ln tl7 ubdivision Exemption PIat A tract of land being a portion of the S 1 /2SE 1/4 of Section 30 Township 6 South, Range 90 West of the 6th P,aa. County of Garfield, State of Colorado 1qt' x.arss rr 4lYJh a -3- II. BACKGROUND & ELIGIBILITY As of 1973, the subject 78.4 -acre tract existed in the same configuration it does today. Research of the chain of title, conducted by Samuel Phelps of SurvCo, Inc. reveled that one 1.58 acre lot has been split from the parent 80 -acre parcel. However, this parcel was split in 1965 and as such, does not count toward the total exemption lots which can be created from the parent parcel as it existed in 1973. It is Staff's opinion that the proposed exemption from the definition of subdivision application is eligible per Section 8:52(A) of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984. III. REFERRAL COMMENTS Staff referred the application to the following agencies / County Departments for their review and comment. Comments received are attached as exhibits and incorporated into the memorandum where applicable: A) Town of New Castle: B) Burning Mountain Fire Protection District: C) Colorado Division of Water Resources: D) Garfield County Road and Bridge Department: E) US Corps of Engineers: IV. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS No Comments Received See Exhibit H See Exhibit L See Exhibit K No Comments Received A. Subdivision Exemption Regulations / Property Eligibility Section 8.52 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations states that "No more than a total of four (4) lots, parcels, interests or dwelling units will be created from any parcel, as that parcel was described in the records of the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder's Office on January 1, 1973. In order to qualify for exemption, the parcel as it existed on January 1, 1973, must have been larger than thirty five (35) acres in size at that time and not a part of a recorded subdivision; however, any parcel to be divided by exemption that is split by a public right-of- way (State or Federal highway, County road or railroad), preventing joint use of the proposed tracts, and the division occurs along the public right-of-way, such parcels thereby created may, in the discretion of the Board, not be considered to have been created by exemption with regard to the four (4) lot, parcel, interest or dwelling unit limitation otherwise applicable. For the purposes of definition, all tracts of land thirty five (35) acres or greater in size, created after January 1, 1973, will count as parcels of land created by exemption since January 1, 1973." Staff Finding As previously noted, Staff finds that this application meets the acreage requirement spelled out in Section 8:52(A) of the Subdivision Regulations of 1984. The Applicant is requesting a total of 5 lots from the existing 78.4 acre property. As noted in -4- Section 8:52, "any parcel to be divided by exemption that is split by a public right-of-way (State or Federal highway, County road or railroad), preventing joint use of the proposed tracts, and the division occurs along the public right-of-way, such parcels thereby created may, at the discretion of the Board, not be considered to have been created by exemption with regard to the four (4) lot, parcel, interest or dwelling unit limitation otherwise applicable." The Applicant explains that (See Exhibit I) "the alignment of County Road 312 has created steep cut slopes on the south side and steep fill slopes on the north side of the road. The steep grade differentials on either side of the road have resulted in a situation where access to the proposed Lot 5 from Lots 1-4, from County Road 312, is difficult if not impossible to achieve. The topographic constraints along the County Road prevent joint use of Lot 5 from Lots 1-4." See photo below. Proposed Lot 5 Proposed Lots 1-4 Staff finds that the proposed Lot 5 has in fact historically been used separately from proposed Lots 1-4, is clearly separated by County Road 312 and is proposed to utilize County Road 312 as the dividing line between Lot 5 and Lots 1-4. As such, Staff finds that this property is eligible for the Exemption process to create a total of 5 lots as proposed. B. Zoning The property is located in the Agricultural / Residential / Rural Density (ARRD) zone district. Section 8:52(B) states that the Board shall not grant an Exemption unless the division proposed for exemption meets the all of County zoning requirements. Upon review of the site plan, it appears that all of the zoning requirements have been or can practically be met except for the side yard setback requirements of 10 feet for the existing residence and structure on proposed Lot 1. More specifically, the side yard of proposed Lot 1 contains three structures including a primary residence and two outbuildings. One of the outbuildings not only falls within the side yard setback, but also extends over the property boundary onto the neighbor' s property to the -5- west. Following research conducted by Staff, it appears that the residence was constructed in 1975 while the outbuilding straddling the property line was constructed in 1965. Hence, it is Staff's opinion that the outbuilding is legal nonconforming as it was built prior to zoning as well as building permit requirements. The residence was constructed in 1975. Following a review of building permits, it does not appear that a permit has been issued for this residence. However, zoning was in place in 1973 at which point this property was zoned ARRD as it is today. This zoning resolution requires a side yard setback of 10 feet. It is clear that this residence does not conform to this setback requirement and as such this structure does not conform to zoning. To this end, this Exemption application is in violation of Section 8:52(B). This requirement has not been met. LJtWxy Emergency Services and rire Access easement (Hatched area) C. Legal Access All lots being created front directly on County Road 312 and as such have access to a public right-of-way. Proposed Lot 1 and Lot 2 share an existing driveway from CR 312 providing physical access to the existing residential improvements at the west and central portions of the parcel. The Applicant is proposing to create a 30' wide access easement across Lot 1 to continue service to the development on proposed Lot 2. The Applicant has provided a Declaration of Covenants and Road -Sharing Agreement. This easement, however, does not fully meet up with the CR 312 right-of-way. In order to guarantee access to this access, utility and emergency service easement from the County Road, Staff recommends realigning the driveway to the east -6- so that the driveway has fully consecutive with CR 312. See illustration below. The County Road and Bridge Department reviewed the proposal and has conducted an onsite visit with the Applicant. Jake Mall of the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department states that they have "no objections to this application." Presently, the Road and Bridge Department recommends the Board require that a 60' (30' from centerline) deeded easement for CR 312. Ines) Utility, Emergency Services and Fire Access easement CF4atc:hed area) D. Domestic / Irrigation Water The application contains four well permits. According to the Division of Water Resources (See Exhibit L), "The report referenced four permit numbers (80600, 152526, 271766, 271770). All four permits are valid per CRS 37-92-602 (3)(d)(ii), and Permit Nos. 271766 and 271770 are each valid for use in three single-family dwellings." In addition, Staff has determined that the existing well, number 80600 is not located on the subject parcel. The Applicant will need to secure an easement for this well in order to ensure legal access to the water supply. According to the Applicant: Upon approval of this exemption request, the State Division of Water Resources will trade the exempt well permits ( Permit 271766 & Permit # 271770 ) for individual well permits. household use only, for Lots 2 through 5. As a result, we have .not included shared well agreements for the lots sharing the exempt wells nor have we shownany cross easements for piping. -7- The Applicant is proposing the following well and water supply scenario: Lot Water Provider Permit Number (Cap.) 1 Existing Well 80600 (1 DU) 2 Existing Well OR By New Shared Well on Lot 3 152526 (1 DU) OR 271766 (3 DU) 3 New Individual OR Shared Well 271766 (3 DU) 4 New Shared Well (located on Lot 4) 271770 (3 DU) 5 New Shared Well (located on Lot 4) 271770 (3 DU) The Applicant has provided the following information concerning the existing and proposed wells on the property: Anticipating approval of individual well permits for all lots, exploratory wells were drilled on Lots 2, 3 and 4 in the winter of 2006/2007. Pump tests were performed on all of the wells. The pumping results of the wells are as follows: Lot/Well # Duration of Test l low/Gallo.ns Per Minute ( GPM) Lot 1 4 Hr. .33 GP,M. Lot 2 24 Hr. 3.75 GPM l.,ot 3 4 Hr, 4.0 GPM Lot 4 24 Hr, 3.6 GPM Lot 5* N/A N/A. *Lot not accessible to drill rig at the tithe. In response to the very low rate of production for the well serving Lot 1, Michael Erion, P.E. stated: The existing well was constructed in 1975. is 100 feet deep and is drilled into clay and sand material, The static water level was measured at 48 feet. A four hour pumping test was conducted on February 20, 2006 during the seasonal low ground water period. Based on the results, the existing well has an estimated long term yield of approximately 0.33 gpm. The yield of the well has been adequate for a single family house. The well also irrigates lawn and garden around the house so it likely has a higher yield in the spring and summer months. The Applicant has supplied water quality tests for all wells and offers the following explanation: Water quality testing was also performed at the time of the pump test;. With the exception of the well on Lot 2, the potable water meets all of the primary State drinking water standards including bacteria and nitrates. The shipping of the eater sample from Lot 2 was delayed as a result of a shipping error so the bacteria test was conducted outside of the holding time limit for the sample. The well will be retested for bacteria prior to signing of the Exemption Plat. We were not able to drill an exploratory well on Lot 5. We could not access Lot 5 at the time we were drilling the other wells. A new driveway access will have to be constructed before we can drill a well on the lot. Based on the pumping results for l..ots 1 through 4, it is the opinion of Michael Erion, P.E., ., Resource Engineering Inc.. that an adequate water supply can be developed for Lot 5. Based on the aforementioned information, Staff finds that legal and adequate water is available to serve the proposed lots. However, as is normally required by Section 8:42(D), prior to the signing of any final exemption plat the Applicant shall provide a water sharing agreement. The water sharing agreement shall be filed with the exemption plat that defines the rights of the property owners to water from the well and pertaining to all shared wells within the proposed Exemption application. E. Sewer / Waste Water The existing residential improvement on Proposed Lot 1 is presently served by an ISDS. The Applicant proposes the same method of handling wastewater on newly created Lots 2-5. The Applicant has provided the following description of the soils located on this property: The Soil Conservation Service soil survey mapping has identified the following four (4) types of soil map units covering the property: 19 -- Cuehetopa-Jerry complex 24 Dollard -stock outcrop 45 — Morvai-Tridell complex 65 — Torriiluvents 68 --- Vale silt loam Of the five (5) soil map units. only the (45) Morvcl-Tridcll complex and (68 Vale silt loam mapping units are located where proposed building development will occur. The proposed exemption Lots 2.3, 4 and a majority of Lot" are situated in the Vale silt loam snapping, unit area while Lot 5 is situated in the ivlorvel- fridell complex map unit. Vale silt loaru is found on areas with 3 to 6% slopes. This deep, well drained soil is on mesa. terraces and alluvial fans. According to the U.S.D.A. soil survey interpretation tables, limitations are slight with regards to building site development and moderate in term, of septic rank absorption fields. The moderate classification is due to slow percolation rates. The material is rated as poor kir road. fill due to its lost strength. Those site development limitations can he mitigated through proper engineering design. .Mo.rval-lridall complex soils are found on 6 to 25%:b slopes. Both the Moval and Tridall soil are deep, well drained soils. The interpretation tables rale this map unit as moderate for both building site development and septic tank absorption fields and fair lir road 1111. Regardless of the limitations of some soils to building and construction. these linvtations can he mitigated through proper engineering design. -9- Following examination of the soils data located on this property, Staff suggests that all ISDS systems be designed by a professional, Colorado certified engineer. F. State and Local Health Standards Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment ISDS standards require the County to issue an ISDS permit for all such systems installed in the County. The future lot owners will be required to obtain the necessary ISDS permits from the County at the time building permits are obtained. G. Drainage / Floodplain The proposed parcels will contain approximately 11 to 20 acres each with limited creation of impervious space resulting in minimal drainage. The subject parcel is sloped from the north toward Garfield Creek and as such, Staff does not foresee any immediate problems regards storm water drainage. The Applicant has not represented any mapped floodplains on the property although Garfield Creek runs through the northern most portions of Lots 2-4. Staff has examined the current floodplain data for Garfield County and has not identified any floodplains present on the subject parcel. Staff has further examined hazards on the subject parcel and has not identified any other known hazards afflicting this property. Farce) -10- Orr/Smith Exemption Hazards 4 Fee: H. Fire Protection The property is located in the Burning Mountain Fire Protection District. The Applicant is proposing on-site water storage for fire protection which is to consist of two, 6,000 gallon storage tanks. The location of the tanks is to be in the 30' wide Utility, Emergency Service and Fire Access easement within Lot 1. The tanks are to be buried and be equipped with a dry hydrant. Based on the signature of the District (See Exhibit H), it appears this plan is satisfactory for the District. J. Easements This Exemption Plat is to create 4 new easements within the subject parcel: 1. A 20' wide Electric Line easement crossing the northerly section of Lot 5; 2. A 30' wide Access, Utility, Emergency Services and Fire Access easement across the southerly section of Lot 1; 3. A 60' wide Right -of -Way easement for County Road 312 (30' from centerline); and, 4. A 20' wide Electric Line easement crossing the northerly section of Lot 4. No existing easements have been represented. K. School / Development Impact Fees The property is located in the School District RE -2 which requires the payment of a $200.00 school site acquisition fee for each new lot created. In this case, the new lots being created for the purposes of applying this fee are Lots 2 through 5. V. STAFF RECOMMENDED FINDINGS 1. That proper posting and public notice was provided as required for the meeting before the Board of County Commissioners. 2. That the meeting before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed exemption has been determined to be in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. That the application has met the requirements of Sections 8:00 of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended. -11- VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Board deny the request for an Exemption from the Definition of Subdivision for Lacy Orr and Gil Smith as joint tenants finding the proposal does not meet the requirements of Section 8:00 of the County's Subdivision Regulations of 1984, as amended. Should the Board approve the request for an Exemption, Staff suggests the following conditions of approval. 1. That all representations made by the Applicant in a public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners shall be considered conditions of approval unless otherwise amended or changed by the Board. 2. The Applicant shall include the following text as plat notes on the final exemption plat: a. "Control of noxious weeds is the responsibility of the property owner." b. "One (1) dog will be allowed for each residential unit within a subdivision exemption and the dog shall be required to be confined within the owners property boundaries." c. "No open hearth solid fuel fireplaces will be allowed anywhere within an exemption. One (1) new solid fuel burning stove as defied by C.R.S. 25-7-401, et. seq., and the regulations promulgated thereunder, will be allowed in any dwelling unit. All dwelling units will be allowed an unrestricted number of natural gas burning stoves and appliances ". d. "All exterior lighting shall be the minimum amount necessary and that all exterior lighting be directed inward and downward, towards the interior of the subdivision exemption, except that provisions may be made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property boundaries ". e. "Colorado is a "Right -to -Farm" State pursuant to C.R.S. 35-3-101, et seq. Landowners, residents and visitors must be prepared to accept the activities, sights, sounds and smells of Garfield County's agricultural operations as a normal and necessary aspect of living in a County with a strong rural character and a healthy ranching sector. Those with an urban sensitivity may perceive such activities, sights, sounds and smells only as inconvenience, eyesore, noise and odor. However, State law and County policy provide that ranching, farming or other agricultural activities and operations within Garfield County shall not be considered to be nuisances so long as operated in conformance with the law and in a non -negligent manner. Therefore, all must be prepared to encounter noises, odor, lights, mud, dust, smoke chemicals, machinery on public roads, livestock on public roads, storage and disposal of manure, and the application by spraying or otherwise of chemical fertilizers, soil amendments, herbicides, and pesticides, any one or more of which may naturally occur as a part of a legal and non -negligent agricultural operations. -12- f "All owners of land, whether ranch or residence, have obligations under State law and County regulations with regard to the maintenance of fences and irrigation ditches, controlling weeds, keeping livestock and pets under control, using property in accordance with zoning, and other aspects of using and maintaining property. Residents and landowners are encouraged to learn about these rights and responsibilities and act as good neighbors and citizens of the County. A good introductory source for such information is "A Guide to Rural Living & Small Scale Agriculture" put out by the Colorado State University Extension Office in Garfield County." g. "All new foundations and septic systems shall be designed by a professional engineer licensed to practice in Colorado. h. "All new and existing residences for Lots 1-5 shall be equipped with an onsite potable water disinfection treatment system." "With prior notice by the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department and prior to the construction of any upgrades to County Road 312 requiring the use of the 60' Right-of-way easement, the property owner shall remove all berms, fences, brush or other impediments to the road upgrades at the current property owner's expense." "No further divisions by exemption from the rules of subdivision will be permitted." k. "Building location on lot five (5) shall be located within the designated building envelope." 1. "No building shall be permitted within 30' of the high water mark of Garfield Creek." 3. Because Lots 2 and 3 as well as Lots 4 and 5 are proposed to share a well for their domestic water supply, the Applicant shall establish an unincorporated Homeowners Association (with associated protective covenants) to own and manage the shared components of the shared water system as well as the water rights which include the ownership of the well. This HOA shall determine how physical elements and associated rights of the shared water system (well, water lines, easements, maintenance and repair obligations) are to be owned and managed for each future owner of Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5. This document shall be provided to the County for review as part of the final plat submittal. 4. Prior to the signing of the plat, all physical water supplies shall demonstrate the following as part of the final plat submittal: a) The water quality be tested by an approved testing laboratory for all wells (specific to Lot 2) and meet State guidelines concerning bacteria, nitrates and suspended solids; -13- b) A water sharing agreement will be filed with the exemption plat that defines the rights of the property owners to water from the well. 5. Due to the shallow depth of the proposed wells, an on-site potable water disinfection system is required for each new and existing residential dwelling unit constructed. 6. The property is located in the School District RE -2 which requires the payment of a $200.00 school site acquisition fee for each new lot created. In this case, the new lots being created for the purposes of applying this fee is Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5. 7. The Applicant shall secure an easement for the existing well, number 80600 to ensure access to the water supply. 8. All construction shall require compliance with NFPA 1144 Standard for Protection of Life and Property from Wildfire recommendations. 9. In order to guarantee access to the 30' Utility, Emergency Services and Fire Access easement from County Road 312, the access point onto the County Road shall be realigning to the east so that the full width of the easement abuts County Road 312. 10. The Applicant shall provide right-of-way to the County for a 30 -foot strip from the centerline of County 312 to the property line for the length of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 as they abut County Road 312. This deeded easement of the right-of-way shall be provided in a form acceptable to the County Attorney's Office and provided with the final plat materials. Further, with prior notice by the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department and prior to the construction of any upgrades to County Road 312 requiring the use of the 60' Right-of-way easement, the property owner shall remove all berms, fences, brush or other impediments to the road upgrades at the current property owner's expense. -14- Jul 21 06 11:20a Rdmin 970 -876 - BURNING MOUNTAINS FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Beit C. McLin Chief 611 Main St. P.O. Box 2 Silt, CO. 81652 John L. Taufer PO Box 2271 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 John: Phone: (970) 876-5738 Fax: (970) 876-2774 E -Mail: burningmountainschief@msn.com 19 July 2006 Regarding the Orr/Smith Property Exemption, a 5 lot subdivision, you have agreed to install water storage tanks and standpipes for fire department use. You have further agreed to grant an easement allowing fir department access and use. These agreements satisfy the requirements of the Burning Mountains Fire Protection District for this project. Brit C. McLin JOHN L. TAUFER & ASSOCIATES, INC. Landscape Architecture / Land Planning February 14, 2007 David Pesnichak, Senior Planner Garfield County Building & Planning Department 108 8th Street Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Orr/Smith Exemption — Supplemental Information Dear David, RE FEB 1 6 2007 BOICDIAla 6 PLAN NG In response to your letter regarding the Orr/Smith Exemption, dated January 10, 2007, you stated that the application was incomplete for the following reasons: 1) Lack of evidence that the parcel qualifies for exemption and 2) lack of evidence that the public right-of-way prevents joint use of the proposed Lot 5 from Lots 1-4 and is eligible to exceed the 4 lot maximum established in Section 8:52 (A). The following shall serve as supplemental information to the application in addressing the deficiencies in the application: 1) The Orr/Smith parcel, County Parcel # 2183-302-00-008, containing approximately 78.5 acres, existed as described on January 1, 1973. Attached is a Memo from SURVCO, INC, which shows evidence and demonstrates that the parcel existed in its present configuration on January 1, 1973. The chain of title is included with the Memo. 2) The Smith/Orr property consists of approximately 78.5 acres. County Road 312 runs through the Smith/Orr property thus dividing the property into two (2) parcels: a 58.4 parcel north of the County road and a 20.1 acre parcel on the south side of the County road. The Orr/Smith Exemption application requests a total of 5 lots. Lots 1-4 would be situated on the 58.4 acre parcel and Lot 5 would be situated on the 20.1 acre parcel. The alignment of County Road 312 has created steep cut slopes on the south side and steep fill slopes on the north side of the road. The steep grade differentials on either side of the road have resulted in a situation where access to the proposed Lot 5 from Lots 1-4, from County Road 132, is difficult if not impossible to achieve. The topographic constraints along the County road prevent joint use of Lot 5 from Lots 1-4. 909 Colorado Avenue • Box 2271 • Glenwood Springs, C0 81 802 (970) 945-1337 • FAX (970) 945-7914 However, there is one specific location that could be used to access Lot 5 but constructing the access would involve a considerable amount of effort and earthwork to achieve access to the lot. This specific area is located at the northwest corner of Lot 5. Given the fact that access to Lot 5 is limited; the property is heavily vegetated; is not irrigated and is separated by tnoo benefit to oad 312, ot 5 1 Lots des little opportunity for use and provides little or I have attached some photographs of the road cut and fills along County Road 312. The photographs help illustrate the difficulties in accessing the proposed Lot 5. Please review this supplemental material at your contactmy convenience.oIf you need additional information or have questions, please feel free to Sincerely, John L. Taufer, Owners Representative Attachment COUNTY ROAD 312 LOOKING EAST - ROAD CUT & FILLS PROPOSED LOT 5 IS ON RIGHT COUNTY ROAD 312 LOOKING WEST - ROAD CUT & FILLS PROPOSED LOT 5 IS ON LEFT SURVCO, INC. RTK GPS and Conventional Land Surveying Services MEMO Tuesday, March 06, 2007 To: John Taufer From: Samuel Phelps Re: County Parcel No. 2183-302-00-008 and eligibility for Exemption John; As you have requested we have researched the chain of title for the above referenced property known as the S 1/2SE 1/4, Section 30, Township 6 South, Range 90 West of the 6th P.M. and containing approximately 80 acres by standard aliquot division and find that one (1) other parcel has been created from this parent parcel as described below: • Parcel 2183-302-00-055 was created by Warranty Deed recorded in Book 368 at Page 481, Aug. 11, 1965 which predates the Jan. 1, 1973 requirement, therefore not counting against the maximum allowable number of parcels that could be created by the Exemption process. Therefore it appears that the balance of the parenting parcel known as Parcel No. 2183- 302-00-008 containing approximately 78.5 acres would qualify for exemption from the definition of subdivision according to the Subdivision Requirements of Garfield County amended March 2004. PH: (970) 945-5945 B261/2 GRAND AVENUE POST OFFICE Box 2782 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO. S1602-2782 SURVCD@EARTHLINK.NET FAX: (970) 945-5946 GARFIELD COUNTY Building & Planning Department Review Agency Form Name of application: Orr / Smith Exemption Sent to: Garfield County Road & Bridge Dept. EXHIBIT _IL__ Date Sent: March 21, 2007 Comments Due: April 11, 2007 Garfield County requests your comment in review of this project. Please notify the Planning Department in the event you are unable to respond by the deadline. This form may be used for your response, or you may attach your own additional sheets as necessary. Written comments may be mailed, e-mailed, or faxed to: Garfield County Building & Planning Staff contact: David Pesnichak 109 8th Street, Suite 301 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Fax: 970-384-3470 Phone: 970-945-8212 General Comments: Garfield County Road & Bridge Department has no objections to this application with the following comments. As stated in the application I have met onsite with the applicant and have agreed to driveway access locations and conditions specific to the locations that will be stated in the driveway access permits when issued. Garfield County Road & Bridge Department would request another onsite to the property with the applicant and or contractor building the driveway accesses prior to construction of the driveway accesses to review all conditions specific to each driveway access location. If a 60 -foot deeded easement for Cr. 312 (Garfield Creek Road) does not already exist the applicant shall deed a strip of land the entire length of the subdivided property 30 -foot wide on each side of Cr. 312 to Garfield County. Any and all contractors and employees shall be required to fill out the form for certification and affidavit regarding illegal aliens when applying for any driveway access or utility permits issued by Garfield County Road & Bridle Department. Name of review agency: Garfield County Road and Bridge Dept By: Jake B. Mall Date March 26, 2007 Revised 3/30/00 David Pesnichak From: Love, Cynthia [Cynthia.Love@state.co.us] Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 1:15 PM To: David Pesnichak Subject: Orr/Smith Exemption Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT David, Craig Lis had me take a look at this project, and since it is explicitly called a subdivision exemption, we will not provide a formal opinion letter, but the following is for your information. As an exemption, all of the lots automatically qualify for exempt well permits (issued pursuant to CRS 37-92-602). The report referenced four permit numbers (80600, 152526, 271766, 271770). All four permits are valid per CRS 37-92-602(3)(d)(II), and Permit Nos. 271766 and 271770 are each valid for use in three single-family dwellings. Please let me know if you need any more information on this project. Thanks, Cynthia Love Colorado Division of Water Resources 303-866-3581 4/3/2007 STATE OF COLORADO Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Bruce McCloskey, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 April 10, 2007 David Pesnichak Senior Planner- Long Range Garfield County 108 8th Street, Suite 104 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-8212 RE: Orr/Smith Application for Subdivision Exemption, 6640 CR 312, New Castle, CO Dear Mr. Pesnichak, For Wildlife - For People The Colorado Division of Wildlife appreciates your request for comments concerning this subdivision exemption application. The proposed development area is inhabited by a wide variety of wildlife. Mule deer, elk, bear and mountain lions are numerous in the Garfield Creek drainage as well as smaller mammals including coyote, fox, badger, cottontail rabbits, beaver, squirrels, chipmunks and other species. There is also a variety of raptors, migratory birds, song birds, and others that utilize the area. Garfield Creek runs through three of the five proposed lots. The creek provides a riparian habitat that is advantageous to the mentioned species as well as aquatic vertebrates and invertebrates. The Division of Wildlife has been stocking Colorado Cutthroat trout in Garfield Creek just down stream of the subdivision. The conversion of the property from an agricultural use to subdivided lots will have an adverse effect on the wildlife that inhabits the area. However, if the exemption is approved there are a few suggestions I would submit to lessen the impact on wildlife. The corridor of County Road 312 is already a disturbed area from a wildlife perspective. If the houses, outbuildings, livestock pens, etc. are constructed as close as possible to the county road it would leave a larger area available to wildlife behind the development. This would keep most of the human activity, traffic, and driveway use as close to the already disturbed area as possible and farther from Garfield Creek. All development should be done as far from the creek as possible because, as a riparian area, the creek is the most diverse and crucial habitat type in the proposed subdivision property. The lots will most likely be fenced. If the fence is built to wildlife friendly standards there will be less injury and loss of wildlife due to fence crossing as well as less fence damage. District Wildlife Manager, Will Spence, would be happy to provide suggestions for wildlife friendly fencing options. Buyers of the lots should be aware of the fact that the property will be frequented by all of the species named above. They need to be prepared to keep their trash from being attractive to bears. They should be aware of and willing to deal with the results of moving into an area rich with wildlife. Because the property neighbors the Garfield Creek DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Harris D. Sherman, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Tom Burke, Chair • Claire O'Neal, Vice Chair • Robert Bray, Secretary Members, Brad Coors • Jeffrey Crawford • Rick Enstrom • Roy McAnally • Richard Ray • Ken Torres Ex Officio Members, Harris Sherman and John Stulp State Wildlife Area, buyers should be notified that there are specific restrictions to use of the Wildlife Area including a closure to all human activity from December 1st through July 15t. In short, the State Wildlife Area is intended for wildlife habitat as opposed to open space recreation. Thank you for the opportunity to present these suggestions. If the Division can provide assistance in regards to designing a more wildlife friendly development please contact Will Spence at (970) 985-5882. Sincerely, AyV 2-40 Dean Riggs Area Wildlife Manager cc: Ron Velarde Will Spence John Toolen 2